| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Should India clear out from the Andaman islands?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Should India clear out from the Andaman islands?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2010 at 05:22
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Will you please "can" the rotting verbiage, Carch? Wanting to see "people survive" may be interesting as a TV  "reality" theme but this bit over "foreigners" has reached the reductio ad absurdum point.

Well, there are actually some people left who still cares about some of the things that are happening in the world.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2010 at 03:09
Will you please "can" the rotting verbiage, Carch? Wanting to see "people survive" may be interesting as a TV  "reality" theme but this bit over "foreigners" has reached the reductio ad absurdum point.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2010 at 21:33
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Al, apparently Carcharadon has his own paternalistic approach but somehow--as usual he does appear to operate in a vacuum. Here is an interesting excise on the Andaman Islands from the 1902 (10th Edition) of the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
 --------
As you can see the "do gooders" have a settled history here. But, frankly, Carcharadon's choice of vocabulary--"the colonists"--is a tad much. Port Blair hardly constitutes a nexus of "exploitation" and given the fact that what is under discussion consists of some 1,000 individuals that are, essentially, isolates in terms of the overall population (some 300,000+) today's generation of "do-gooders" are simply proposing a type of zoological preserve.

Hardly, Survival and others that are genuinely interested in this issue just want to see a people survive that is severely threatened to be totally swamped by a population of foreigners that are intruding on their native lands. It is strange to often hear Americans and other westerners complaining about illegal immigration to their own countries, while they still think it is okay that settlers and colonists shall be able to swamp territory that belongs to indigenous peoples. But maybe it is in such things the real paternalism lies, in the believe that indigenous peoples shall accept and be submitted to things westerners would not like to be submitted to themselves.
 
 



Edited by Carcharodon - 29 Jun 2010 at 21:34
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2010 at 21:20
Originally posted by whalebreath whalebreath wrote:

[quote]the Jarawas are being more and more threatened by loggers, illegal hunters and fishers and by other.......

Note-Commercial fishing is banned in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands-this is rigorously enforced by the Indian Navy. 


Still it occurs. It seems that the indian authorities have not the resources or ability to watch the waters around the islands completely. Sometimes it even comes to tragic conflicts between illegal fishermen and the native Andamanese.



Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2010 at 10:29
I agree, I think the idea of forcing 300,000 people to leave their homes for the sake of 1,000 is unconscionable.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2010 at 04:42
Al, apparently Carcharadon has his own paternalistic approach but somehow--as usual he does appear to operate in a vacuum. Here is an interesting excise on the Andaman Islands from the 1902 (10th Edition) of the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
 
"A notable eccentricity with these people is crying, as an utterance of emotion. It is an expression of reconciliation with enemies, and of joy at meeting friends after long separation. Something similar is known in New Zealand, and, it would seem, among the Patagonians. When two Andaman tribes meet under such circumstances, the new-comers begin the process, the women weeping first; their men then take up the lugubrious function; finally, the tribe on whose ground the scene occur reciprocate, commencing with their women. This doleful antistrophe is continued long -- "sometimes through several days" -- and then they take to dancing.

They are said to have no idea of a God or future state, though Colonel Symes in his narrative gives a different account, and perhaps information on this points is still too imperfect. We find reference made to their belief that evil spirits cause disease, and to their dread of the ghosts of the dead.

They were always very hostile to strangers, repulsing all approaches with treachery, or with violence and showers of arrows. This may have originated in ancient liability to slave raids. Not till five years after the establishment of Port Blair colony did they begin to abate hostility. Robberies were frequent, and the murder of persons straying into the woods. The Government established homes for the aborigines in the environs of the settlement -- viz., sheds for shelter, with some aid in rations, &c., and this conduced to a better state of things. An orphanage also has now been established under European matrons.
They are perfect swimmers and divers, and expert in managing canoes. These are neatly formed, and according to Mouat, some are fitted with outriggers, which enable them to go seaward for considerable distances. Two centuries ago, according to Captain A. Hamilton, they used to make hostile descents on the Nicobars, and this is confirmed by a Nicobar tradition mentioned in the Asiatic Reseurches. But there is apparently no later evidence of such expeditions, and they were probably confined to March and April, when the sea is generally like a pond.

The number of aborigines is unknown, and conjecture has varied form 3000 up to 10,000, or even 15,000. Dr Mouat, in 1857, whilst steaming rapidly round the islands, everywhere saw natives in considerable numbers, and was induced to believe that the older and lower estimates had been much under the truth; but there is reason to believe that the population is on the coast only. They are divided into tribes or groups, not usually containing more than thirty individuals; and among these the country is partitioned in some fashion, for we are told that trespasses are a common ground of war between tribes. Each tribe has a depot, or headquarters, where the sick are tended and surplus stores are kept.

The name Moncopie is applied to the Andaman race in books, originating with a vocabulary given by Lieutenant Colebrooke. One suspects some misunderstanding about this. Of the language we have as yet little information. It is said to be very deficient in words, and there is the tendency usual in the circumstances to strong dialectic differences. Thus the people of Little Andaman are said not to understand those of South Andaman. Those near the settlement begin to incorporate English and Hindustani words. It is stated positively that they have no numerals. It was once believed that they have no proper names, but this proves erroneous. The child is named before birth: hence names seem of common gender, and as they are few-some twenty in all -- a special epithet is prefixed to each, personal or local in origin."
 
 
As you can see the "do gooders" have a settled history here. But, frankly, Carcharadon's choice of vocabulary--"the colonists"--is a tad much. Port Blair hardly constitutes a nexus of "exploitation" and given the fact that what is under discussion consists of some 1,000 individuals that are, essentially, isolates in terms of the overall population (some 300,000+) today's generation of "do-gooders" are simply proposing a type of zoological preserve.
 
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 29 Jun 2010 at 04:42
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
whalebreath View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 244
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote whalebreath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2010 at 04:41
Quote the Jarawas are being more and more threatened by loggers, illegal hunters and fishers and by other.......


Note-Commercial fishing is banned in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands-this is rigorously enforced by the Indian Navy.

While it's common for  sportfishing yachts from Thailand to travel to the Andamans to fish in season the Navy keeps a close watch on them-ditto the few local sportfishing operations.

Waters in/around the Andamans are not being scraped clean like so many other places on earth.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2010 at 02:58
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

India cannot disarm any talk of Nuke free India can only happen when peace has been acheived between it and Pakistan. If pakistan and India actaully feel safe with each other then both the Nukes may get ditched, the PRC will alway give India second thouths.

The Andaman island should have parts of it sectioned off so the negritos can live in their stone age peace.

All it takes is closing down the roads and pretty much 100% isolating them from the colonists with strong laws and enforcements. unfortunately most of the damage however has already been done.

At the same time if the main bulk of the colonists are to remain, they are probably going to increase their numbers. So a relocation program for at least a part of the colonists would perhaps be necessary to be sure to save the Anadamn population. Also if there is a chance for the natives to actually survive and to regain their strenght they would increase their population and then there must be room enough for them to live. And that is hard to obtain if hundreds of thousands Indians live there. For survival in the long run and for the native people to be able to expand and regain their numbers it is necessary to relocate some foreigners and to stop further foreign expansion.
 
I have a question Carch
 
All this talk is good in theory but has anyone even talked to those natives to get their opinion in the first place?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2010 at 02:37
I hear the steady hissing of the "life-support" machinery!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2010 at 22:34
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

India cannot disarm any talk of Nuke free India can only happen when peace has been acheived between it and Pakistan. If pakistan and India actaully feel safe with each other then both the Nukes may get ditched, the PRC will alway give India second thouths.

The Andaman island should have parts of it sectioned off so the negritos can live in their stone age peace.

All it takes is closing down the roads and pretty much 100% isolating them from the colonists with strong laws and enforcements. unfortunately most of the damage however has already been done.

At the same time if the main bulk of the colonists are to remain, they are probably going to increase their numbers. So a relocation program for at least a part of the colonists would perhaps be necessary to be sure to save the Anadamn population. Also if there is a chance for the natives to actually survive and to regain their strenght they would increase their population and then there must be room enough for them to live. And that is hard to obtain if hundreds of thousands Indians live there. For survival in the long run and for the native people to be able to expand and regain their numbers it is necessary to relocate some foreigners and to stop further foreign expansion.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2010 at 22:21
India cannot disarm any talk of Nuke free India can only happen when peace has been acheived between it and Pakistan. If pakistan and India actaully feel safe with each other then both the Nukes may get ditched, the PRC will alway give India second thouths.

The Andaman island should have parts of it sectioned off so the negritos can live in their stone age peace.

All it takes is closing down the roads and pretty much 100% isolating them from the colonists with strong laws and enforcements. unfortunately most of the damage however has already been done.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2010 at 22:20
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:


Still there took a lot of diplomatic effort to clear out of harms way, both during WWII and later. The defence force had a strategy for the case diplomacy should fail, and there is nothing too strange with that. But diplomacy succeeded and Sweden has not been in war for two centuries. That ought to be something for other countries to study and learn from.



Meh, the reason is rather the surprisingly late realization that Sweden was too poor to play with the big boys. A good metaphore would be the cartoon character who steps out of a cliff and stays in thin air until it comes up to him where he is, except in the Swedish case he takes a quick step back to the cliff before he falls. Swedish diplomacy since has been not to give anyone incentive to invade (read: making concessions and sucking up to the current bully),

A rather wize policy, not giving anyone incentive to invade, that is indeed diplomacy in practise. To all the time annoy your neigbours with threats and strange actions, as too many countries in the world does, is bad politics and diplomacy. 

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

 or, as during the Cold War, to maintain an army strong enough (at least on paper) to not make it worthwhile. That Sweden is on the periphery of the world helps tremendously. Had you moved it to a place with outmost strategic importance and wouldn't have been neutral for long.

The strategic importance of Sweden, the baltic outlet and the Oresund area shall not be neglected.

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3603
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2010 at 21:59
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:


Still there took a lot of diplomatic effort to clear out of harms way, both during WWII and later. The defence force had a strategy for the case diplomacy should fail, and there is nothing too strange with that. But diplomacy succeeded and Sweden has not been in war for two centuries. That ought to be something for other countries to study and learn from.




Meh, the reason is rather the surprisingly late realization that Sweden was too poor to play with the big boys. A good metaphore would be the cartoon character who steps out of a cliff and stays in thin air until it comes up to him where he is, except in the Swedish case he takes a quick step back to the cliff before he falls. Swedish diplomacy since has been not to give anyone incentive to invade (read: making concessions and sucking up to the current bully), or, as during the Cold War, to maintain an army strong enough (at least on paper) to not make it worthwhile. That Sweden is on the periphery of the world helps tremendously. Had you moved it to a place with outmost strategic importance and wouldn't have been neutral for long.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2010 at 21:04
Some info about the issue:

The last member of a unique tribe has died on Indias Andaman Islands:

Poachers threatens survival of Jarawa tribe:

The Onge live on a reserve less than a third of the size of their original territory. Little Andaman is now also home to Indian settlers, and much of the island has been deforested.

Of the four tribes of the Andaman Islands, colonization proved most disastrous for the Great Andamanese. When the British arrived there were more than 5,000; today, only 52 survive.


Edited by Carcharodon - 28 Jun 2010 at 21:06
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2010 at 20:57
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


What a hypocritical bastard you are. Sweden has no diplomatic skills short of surrendering their defence to the USA. The only reason your big bad neighbours don't crush you is because your other big bad neighbours will unleash nuclear destruction if they do. Your anti-war stance is a benefit of the money spent on nuclear weapons in Russia and the US. Not because of any diplomatic skills of your own.


It was even the official strategy of the Swedish Krigsmakt (it wasn't until later they switched the name to "Defence force" so no one would misunderstand its intentions): to hold the Russians back for two weeks until the cowboys came riding. Funny Carch missed that.

Still there took a lot of diplomatic effort to clear out of harms way, both during WWII and later. The defence force had a strategy for the case diplomacy should fail, and there is nothing too strange with that. But diplomacy succeeded and Sweden has not been in war for two centuries. That ought to be something for other countries to study and learn from.

But Swedish defence politics and diplomacy is perhaps some OT in this thread which is about the threat to the survival of the Andamanese indigenous peoples.



Edited by Carcharodon - 28 Jun 2010 at 20:58
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2010 at 20:53
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:

Better India and it neighbours improve their diplomatic skills instead of spending a lot of valuable resources on a lot of weapons. And nuclear weapons is a threat against humanity, and that others have them are no excuse to self aqquire them.

Are you advocating negotiating with the Taliban?

I will not go into details about exactly who they are going to negotiate with since I am sure they could handle the diplomacy if they really put some effort into it.

Building nuclear weapons is not the answer to issues that in the end must be settled by politics and diplomacy.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 Maybe we should just settle it all with a Cricket match?
Quote Sweden have big bad neighbours and it has still been possible to avoid war true diplomatic skills and politics. So slowly and gradually India and its neighbours should increase diplomacy and try to start to rely less on violent solutions of problems. Its time they grow up if the world shall be able to develop.

What a hypocritical bastard you are. Sweden has no diplomatic skills short of surrendering their defence to the USA. The only reason your big bad neighbours don't crush you is because your other big bad neighbours will unleash nuclear destruction if they do. Your anti-war stance is a benefit of the money spent on nuclear weapons in Russia and the US. Not because of any diplomatic skills of your own.

Well, dipomacy and politics actually saved Sweden from getting dragged into the latest world war.

Sweden has been able to balance between its neighbours for about 200 years now. That is not just a coincidence that Sweden has managed such a thing that nearly no other countries have succeeded with.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Not only that, but Carch's ideas have been far more effective at genocide than realism or materialism.
If history tells us anything one man like Carch with power over the Andamesese is a far bigger threat than 300k Indians.

Hardly, since the Indians are on their way to suffocate the Andaman islanders and their culture. Especially the Onge and the Great Andamanese are soon vanished from the earth, while the Jarawas are being more and more threatened by loggers, illegal hunters and fishers and by other exploiters. Still the Sentineli manage to hold their ground, but noone knows if they can do so forever.

I hope you do not defend colonial invasion and overtaking of other peoples land.



Edited by Carcharodon - 28 Jun 2010 at 21:14
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3603
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2010 at 17:45
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


What a hypocritical bastard you are. Sweden has no diplomatic skills short of surrendering their defence to the USA. The only reason your big bad neighbours don't crush you is because your other big bad neighbours will unleash nuclear destruction if they do. Your anti-war stance is a benefit of the money spent on nuclear weapons in Russia and the US. Not because of any diplomatic skills of your own.


It was even the official strategy of the Swedish Krigsmakt (it wasn't until later they switched the name to "Defence force" so no one would misunderstand its intentions): to hold the Russians back for two weeks until the cowboys came riding. Funny Carch missed that.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7829
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2010 at 10:14

Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:

Better India and it neighbours improve their diplomatic skills instead of spending a lot of valuable resources on a lot of weapons. And nuclear weapons is a threat against humanity, and that others have them are no excuse to self aqquire them.

Are you advocating negotiating with the Taliban?

Maybe we should just settle it all with a Cricket match?

Quote Sweden have big bad neighbours and it has still been possible to avoid war true diplomatic skills and politics. So slowly and gradually India and its neighbours should increase diplomacy and try to start to rely less on violent solutions of problems. Its time they grow up if the world shall be able to develop.

What a hypocritical bastard you are. Sweden has no diplomatic skills short of surrendering their defence to the USA. The only reason your big bad neighbours don't crush you is because your other big bad neighbours will unleash nuclear destruction if they do. Your anti-war stance is a benefit of the money spent on nuclear weapons in Russia and the US. Not because of any diplomatic skills of your own.
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Not to pick on you Carch but you have become rather predictable. This typical Romanticism for the remoteness of purported Stone Age Edens is so 19th century...it's a rather perverse form of paternalism.

Spot on.
Not only that, but Carch's ideas have been far more effective at genocide than realism or materialism.
If history tells us anything one man like Carch with power over the Andamesese is a far bigger threat than 300k Indians.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2010 at 06:46
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

"[N]eglecting important needs of the people" what sort of malarkey beyond the typical verbosity found in Carcharedonese is that!?! No government lasts for long if it fails to provide "for the common defense". As for an example of overkill, did not a certain Andamanese group "devour" their "invaders"?Evil Smile As in much else on these threads the "tilting at windmills" has become rather tedious.

Noone denies India a defence, but it ought to be reasonable and no overkill nuclear armament that can never be used without leading to a major disaster.
  
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 Not to pick on you Carch but you have become rather predictable. This typical Romanticism for the remoteness of purported Stone Age Edens is so 19th century...it's a rather perverse form of paternalism.

It have nothing to do with paternalism. To concern oneself for peoples survival is rather the opposite of paternalism or 19th century mentality.


Edited by Carcharodon - 28 Jun 2010 at 06:47
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2010 at 03:17
"[N]eglecting important needs of the people" what sort of malarkey beyond the typical verbosity found in Carcharedonese is that!?! No government lasts for long if it fails to provide "for the common defense". As for an example of overkill, did not a certain Andamanese group "devour" their "invaders"?Evil Smile As in much else on these threads the "tilting at windmills" has become rather tedious.
 
Not to pick on you Carch but you have become rather predictable. This typical Romanticism for the remoteness of purported Stone Age Edens is so 19th century...it's a rather perverse form of paternalism.


Edited by drgonzaga - 28 Jun 2010 at 03:20
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2010 at 02:55
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 If India (which has historical links to the Andamans going back centuries) does not guarantee the security and wellbeing of the islanders by occupying the islands, you will find the Chinese trying to do so instead. That would probably be a worse scenario for the Andamanese.

Noone say that India can not guarantee the safety of the Andamans. Actually it is their obligation since they have destroyed part of the islands and more or less swamped the islands with Indian people. And as I said, if the Indians manage to clear out most of the settlers and others who do not belong on the islands and relocate them to the mainland, they still could leave a skeleton crew of doctors, nurses, anthropologists and other experts that can be of some help for the indigenous people. That, and to protect the islands from invaders would at least be some compensation for the plundering of natural resources on the Andaman islands.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 As for diplomacy, it only works in certain situations. Neville Chamberlain was quite big on the idea, and it did nothing to prevent war. In the words of Athenian envoys to Melos, via Thucydides, 'the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must'. 'Soft power', is often a much cheaper and more humane option when used by a power with the finesse and skill to make use of it. So we cannot discount the use of soft power. But it is hardly a viable long term guarantee for security.

Well, neglecting important needs of the people to instead increse ones weapons arsenal and constructing nuclear weapons with a terrible destruction capacity is not the right way to go.

Ever heard about overkill?

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jun 2010 at 00:16
If India (which has historical links to the Andamans going back centuries) does not guarantee the security and wellbeing of the islanders by occupying the islands, you will find the Chinese trying to do so instead. That would probably be a worse scenario for the Andamanese.

As for diplomacy, it only works in certain situations. Neville Chamberlain was quite big on the idea, and it did nothing to prevent war. In the words of Athenian envoys to Melos, via Thucydides, 'the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must'. 'Soft power', is often a much cheaper and more humane option when used by a power with the finesse and skill to make use of it. So we cannot discount the use of soft power. But it is hardly a viable long term guarantee for security.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 22:55
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

 
Carch, I agree with the sentiment. But in reality unilateral disarmamant would be the actions of a retarded child and lead to the said childs extermination. You choose to overlook that, for some reason.

There are actually many countries that have no enourmous defence forces but who through diplomacy still manage to avoid war. Its a matter of politics and how one manages political and diplomatic action.

Noone said the Indias should dismantel all their military forces at once, but at least they should not increase them and they ought to be able to dismantel nuclear weapons and also improve their diplomatic skills in order to come to terms with their neighbours (the same goes for Pakistanis and others).


I doubt the problems facing the subcontinent can be solved by doing evening classes in diplomacy.

Perhaps not, but the general approach by the authorities and people in that place needs some changes in order to solve the problems.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 22:46
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

 
Carch, I agree with the sentiment. But in reality unilateral disarmamant would be the actions of a retarded child and lead to the said childs extermination. You choose to overlook that, for some reason.

There are actually many countries that have no enourmous defence forces but who through diplomacy still manage to avoid war. Its a matter of politics and how one manages political and diplomatic action.

Noone said the Indias should dismantel all their military forces at once, but at least they should not increase them and they ought to be able to dismantel nuclear weapons and also improve their diplomatic skills in order to come to terms with their neighbours (the same goes for Pakistanis and others).


I doubt the problems facing the subcontinent can be solved by doing evening classes in diplomacy.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 22:15
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

 
Carch, I agree with the sentiment. But in reality unilateral disarmamant would be the actions of a retarded child and lead to the said childs extermination. You choose to overlook that, for some reason.

There are actually many countries that have no enourmous defence forces but who through diplomacy still manage to avoid war. Its a matter of politics and how one manages political and diplomatic action.

Noone said the Indias should dismantel all their military forces at once, but at least they should not increase them and they ought to be able to dismantel nuclear weapons and also improve their diplomatic skills in order to come to terms with their neighbours (the same goes for Pakistanis and others).


Edited by Carcharodon - 27 Jun 2010 at 22:19
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 21:53
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Quote Nukes are a threat against the safety of humankind and against life on earth. To aqquire them is irresponsible and dangerous.


A truism. What you choose to overlook is that it would be suicide if India decided to unilaterally disarm. Unfortunately, the world does not work according to sheltered Scandanavian principles, were the greatest threat to national security might be a rogue whale attacking a trawler somewhere in the north sea.

Scandinavian peoples have not always been sheltered. But for example Sweden learned (the hard way) the value of diplomacy and politics instead of violence. perhaps it is time for India and its neighbours to grow up and learn to use diplomacy instead of resorting to violence and weapons to solve conflicts.


I don't really know how to respond to it. I'll try:

Carch's head: War is BAD. Therefore war should be AVOIDED.

Reality: If I throw away my weapons a big bad neighbour will come along and devour me in one gulp.

Sweden have big bad neighbours and it has still been possible to avoid war true diplomatic skills and politics. So slowly and gradually India and its neighbours should increase diplomacy and try to start to rely less on violent solutions of problems. Its time they grow up if the world shall be able to develop.


Carch, I agree with the sentiment. But in reality unilateral disarmamant would be the actions of a retarded child and lead to the said childs extermination. You choose to overlook that, for some reason.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 21:51
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Quote Nukes are a threat against the safety of humankind and against life on earth. To aqquire them is irresponsible and dangerous.


A truism. What you choose to overlook is that it would be suicide if India decided to unilaterally disarm. Unfortunately, the world does not work according to sheltered Scandanavian principles, were the greatest threat to national security might be a rogue whale attacking a trawler somewhere in the north sea.

Scandinavian peoples have not always been sheltered. But for example Sweden learned (the hard way) the value of diplomacy and politics instead of violence. perhaps it is time for India and its neighbours to grow up and learn to use diplomacy instead of resorting to violence and weapons to solve conflicts.


I don't really know how to respond to it. I'll try:

Carch's head: War is BAD. Therefore war should be AVOIDED.

Reality: If I throw away my weapons a big bad neighbour will come along and devour me in one gulp.

Sweden have big bad neighbours and it has still been possible to avoid war true diplomatic skills and politics. So slowly and gradually India and its neighbours should increase diplomacy and try to start to rely less on violent solutions of problems. Its time they grow up if the world shall be able to develop.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 21:48
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Quote Nukes are a threat against the safety of humankind and against life on earth. To aqquire them is irresponsible and dangerous.


A truism. What you choose to overlook is that it would be suicide if India decided to unilaterally disarm. Unfortunately, the world does not work according to sheltered Scandanavian principles, were the greatest threat to national security might be a rogue whale attacking a trawler somewhere in the north sea.

Scandinavian peoples have not always been sheltered. But for example Sweden learned (the hard way) the value of diplomacy and politics instead of violence. perhaps it is time for India and its neighbours to grow up and learn to use diplomacy instead of resorting to violence and weapons to solve conflicts.


I don't really know how to respond to it. I'll try:

Carch's head: War is BAD. Therefore war should be AVOIDED.

Reality: If I throw away my weapons a big bad neighbour will come along and devour me in one gulp.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 21:35
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Quote Nukes are a threat against the safety of humankind and against life on earth. To aqquire them is irresponsible and dangerous.


A truism. What you choose to overlook is that it would be suicide if India decided to unilaterally disarm. Unfortunately, the world does not work according to sheltered Scandanavian principles, were the greatest threat to national security might be a rogue whale attacking a trawler somewhere in the north sea.

Scandinavian peoples have not always been sheltered. But for example Sweden learned (the hard way) the value of diplomacy and politics instead of violence. perhaps it is time for India and its neighbours to grow up and learn to use diplomacy instead of resorting to violence and weapons to solve conflicts.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2010 at 21:27
Quote Nukes are a threat against the safety of humankind and against life on earth. To aqquire them is irresponsible and dangerous.


A truism. What you choose to overlook is that it would be suicide if India decided to unilaterally disarm. Unfortunately, the world does not work according to sheltered Scandanavian principles, were the greatest threat to national security might be a rogue whale attacking a trawler somewhere in the north sea.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.